April 29, 2011

When I was a Air Force 1/Lt and newly married we lived pay check to pay check. As a result we did most of our food and cloths buying at the beginning of each month, cutting back on those little extras like eating out, buying a new book, or taking an afternoon drive in the country near the end of the month. Over time Ellen build up our financial reserves and we were less prone to this first of the month buying.

Since Wal-Mart is one of the places that families living paycheck to paycheck shop, they is sensitive to that economic behavior. Wal-Mart averages 140 million shoppers weekly to its US stores and is considered a barometer to the health of our economy. This recently appeared in CNN Money:

Wal-Mart’s core shoppers are running out of money much faster than a year ago due to rising gasoline prices, and the retail giant is worried, CEO Mike Duke said Wednesday.

“We’re seeing core consumers under a lot of pressure,” Duke said at an event in New York. “There’s no doubt that rising fuel prices are having an impact.”

Wal-Mart shoppers, many of whom live paycheck to paycheck, typically shop in bulk at the beginning of the month when their paychecks come in.

Lately, they’re “running out of money” at a faster clip, he said.

“Purchases are really dropping off by the end of the month even more than last year,” Duke said. “This end-of-month [purchases] cycle is growing to be a concern.

If Wal-Mart is not seeing an economic recovery, we are not recovering, regardless of claims from Washington.

Wal-Mart has decided to bring back guns and ammunition to it's US stores. They stopped selling guns when they started "going green", hoping to attract higher end customers for their organic foods and natural products. However, with declining sales under the going green strategy Wal-Mart has decided to return to the basics that made them a economic giant, to include bringing back guns and ammo to a Wal-Mart near you.

Exit Question: How are increasing fuel prices and increased demand for guns and ammo connected?

Our local left leaning progressives dismissed the Tea Party Patriots as ineffective and inconsequential, soon to vanish from the scene just like the bell bottomed pants of the 1970s. When that did not happen and they continue to cast aspersions on the Tea Party on our local lefty blogs, and it is articles like this one in the Washington Post that raises their blood pressure even more, launching yet again another attack in the Tea Party Patriots.

A growing number of Democrats are threatening to defy the White House over the national debt, joining Republican calls for deficit cuts as a requirement for consenting to lift the country’s borrowing limit.

The tension is the latest illustration of how the tea-party-infused GOP is driving the debate in Washington over federal spending. And it shows how the debt issue is testing the Obama administration’s clout as Democrats, particularly those from politically competitive states, resist White House arguments against setting conditions on legislation to raise the debt ceiling.

You can read the rest here and discover for your self the Democrats who are up for re-election and are taking the Tea Party more seriously that our local progressives.

April 28, 2011

Several people are wondering why more local bloggers have not reported on the Tea Party Patriots event where Congressman Tom McClintock and Mark Meckler, widely recognized co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots, both appeared to answer local TPP members questions on budgets, deficits, and taxes. Just in case you wondering, both George Rebane and I were on an RV camping trip together with our wives, therefore we did not attend and missed this posting opportunity.

Other are wondering about the rumor going around that the BOS is pressuring local media, KNCO and The Union, to stop covering the Diaz Story. I just want to make it clear that this blog is not receiving any pressure from the BOS to stop writing about this story. I will continue to seek answers to two burning questions: Was it corporate incompetence, or was it corporate fraud? George Rebane has over 100 comments from inquiring minds on his KVMR commentary: The Diaz Case Continues.

I was reading The Union's story on the new City Manager, who was recently hired by the City Council of Nevada City, when I was intriged by this item in the story about David Brennan who will become the City Manger when Gene Albaugh, retires effective June 20, 2011.

Brennan most recently served as program manager for the Sonoma County Regional Climate Protection Authority.

What is the SCRCPA? What was their mission and what projects did Dave Brennan work on. As you all know, I think that attributing global warming to human increases in CO2 is a bloody hoax on the American people. Yes, the planet is warming and has been since the last mini ice age, but the small increase in human generated CO2 is not a factor. So, what is Sonoma County Regional Climate Protection Authority and what would a program manager do?

Sonoma County’s nine cities and multiple county agencies have been engaged in local climate protection efforts for more than ten years. In 2002, Sonoma became the first county to have all its jurisdictions conduct greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventories. In 2005, all ten local jurisdictions adopted a joint target of reducing GHG emissions to 25% below 1990 levels by 2015. In 2009 Sonoma took another pioneering step by establishing the Regional Climate Protection Authority (RCPA). The RCPA is a special district created by state legislation designed to improve local coordination on climate change issues and establish a clearinghouse for efforts to reduce countywide GHG emissions.

The RCPA includes a council member from each of the nine cities in Sonoma County and three members of the County Board of Supervisors.

The RCPA does not establish a new bureaucracy; it is directed by the board of the Sonoma County Transportation Authority.

The goals and objectives of the RCPA are actions that need to be taken throughout the county and require regional cooperation to implement.

The only Program Manager listed on the SCRCPA web site is: Climate Protection Program Manager. I am assuming that David was responsible for this Mission:

RCPA coordinates countywide efforts to implement and advocate a broad range of programs and projects to reduce GHG emissions.

And these Goals:

Reduce GHG emission levels by 25% below 1990 levels by 2015

Reduce GHG emission levels by 40% below 1990 levels by 2035

Employ a tracking system to effectively capture GHG emission data and assess progress in reduction efforts.

David should fit-in quite well with "progressive" Nevada City, and all the other warmers on the City Council.

Exit Question: Will we see a Nevada City initiative to create a Nevada County Regional Climate Protection Authority, under the authority of the Nevada County Transportation Commission? Why?

Leader of the California Senate, Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, has introduced a bill that would give local governments the power to raise taxes through approval of multiple new local levies. Here’s a basic summary of SB 653, which is making its way through the Capitol: Any board of supervisors of any county or city would be empowered, “subject to specified constitutional and voter approval requirements, to levy, increase, or extend a local personal income tax, transactions and use tax, vehicle license fee, and excise tax, including, but not limited to, an alcoholic beverages tax, a cigarette and tobacco products tax, a sweetened beverage tax, and an oil severance tax, as provided.” Steinberg would be able to pass this bill with a simple majority in both houses. The legislation stops short of being a direct tax hike, as local governments would merely have the option of imposing these new taxes with approval from local voters.

I wonder of Darrell Steinberg has stocks in U-Haul and other moving companies. This is just another opportuntiy for tax and spend political leaders to save government jobs while stealing the wealth of everyday citizens. If this bill passes the cities and towns with huge givernement pension short falls will seek to tax their way out of the problem with the support of government unions who will flood the media with sob stories. If enough liberal voters will fall these new taxes hook like and sinker, the local business will be calling U-Haul to schedule a truck to Texas and other lower tax states. This bill will only create more California jobs loses.

The Modesto Bee, Fresno Bee, and Sacramento Bee, are still in a red ink death spiral. It appears from the numbers that these papers will only be found on the Internet--real soon now!

Revenues in the first quarter of 2011 were $303.7 million, down 9.5 percent from the first quarter of 2010. Advertising revenues were $225.1 million, down 11 percent from 2010, and circulation revenues were $66.2 million, down 5 percent.

Digital advertising revenues grew 2.2 percent in the first quarter of 2011 and were 20.1 percent of total advertising revenues compared to 17.5 percent of total advertising revenues in the first quarter of 2010.

CA Political News has more on the story, but one has to wonder, why are these newspapers in such a steep decline? What is that is putting off readers and advertizers in these papers.

After the news conference, I hope we can get a complete list of the job bills proposed by Dan and his team to get California economy jump started with some strong jobs growth. I will be tracking the progress of those bills through the legislative process and assess their impact on Nevada County. Stay tuned!

April 27, 2011

I attended the Legislative Committee meeting at the Capitol Building in Sacramento and witnessed the defeat of AB 1332. The historical facts below may put this action in perspective.

2006: the US Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision, instructed the US EPA to regulate carbon dioxide as an “air pollutant” under the Clean Air Act. Fortunately, the EPA was not ordered to do so directly nor was it given a deadline to act.

In like fashion, CA Gov. Schwarzenegger signed the Global Solutions Act of 2006 (AB32) into law, well before any EPA actions on CO2 that would follow.

Both the Court and the Governor ignored the benefits of CO2 , or even considered the very small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (390 ppm) and the position of other government agencies.

Carbon dioxide is not usually considered toxic until oxygen level drops to 19.5%. This is equivalent to 14,000 ppm CO2.

2009: Under the direction of President Obama, the US EPA decreed CO2 to be toxic and an endangerment to all. No thought was given to any harmful effects on the US economy.

2010: AB32 was passed by CA Air Resources Board (CARB) in December. This entails draconian regulations, fees and penalties for truckers and other users of diesel fuel. It will also bring severe control of electric utilities in the near future.

2011: The US Supreme Court refused to consider a six-state lawsuit against several electric power utilities. The states’ claims stated that emissions of green house gases caused a “public nuisance,” global warming and climate change. The Court based its decision on the burden on judges to evaluate a complicated scientific matter.

Obviously, we all have a “carbon footprint” whether we admit it or not, however, there isn’t, and has never been, proof or scientific evidence that increasing CO2 causes global warming. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and has never been proven harmful to humans or to the atmosphere. California’s Democratic government and CARB refuse to accept these arguments and intend to make AB 32 fully effective in 2012.

These irresponsible actions of CARB and the CA government are already showing their harmful effects on our communities, notably Placer County. Have you noticed shuttered stores in our small towns, empty parking lots in shopping centers, large numbers of businesses that have left and continue to leave our state, and the thin automobile traffic on our freeways? Last but not least, the community of truckers that are the lifeline of our commerce is suffering greatly, and many hard-working drivers are now unemployed and/or bankrupt because of regulations, fines and the high cost of fuel.

CARB is at the root of all this. Is this what we expect from our elected officials?

April 26, 2011

Legislation to abolish the California Air Resources Board has been killed by a legislative committee.

The proposal by Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, R-Twin Peaks, died Monday in the Assembly's Natural Resources Committee on a party-line vote, with Democrats opposed to the measure.

Assembly 1332 would have transferred the Air Resources Board's duties, powers and jurisdiction to the state Environmental Protection Agency.

The Air Resources Board is appointed by the governor pending confirmation by the state Senate. It oversees regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and mobile sources of pollution, such as from vehicles, fuels and consumer products.

I did not have much hope that this bill would ever make it to the floor in Democratic controled legislature. True to form the Democrats continue to kill jobs in California, giving preference to saving the planet, based on an unproven scientific theory that CO2 is responsible for current global warming.

April 25, 2011

We have family in-laws living in Davis who have had a long term relationship with UC Davis, having been staff members for years. At our Easter Brunch they were explaining that fewer California’s would be attending UC Davis in the future, as the University plans to enroll more international students, because they bring in more money to the cash strapped school. The University will be giving these non-California students preference when applying to the school. Why? Simple economics!

Here is one look at the economics of International Students by the University of California Berkeley Center for Studies of Higher Education. The annual revenue from International students is about $18 Billion with CA's top 20 schools enrolling International Students capturing over $1.7 Billion of that revenue stream. Davis is currently 11th out of the top 20 in international enrollment. According to my contacts the University is planning to move up that ladder by enrolling more wealthy international students in future years. That will mean few slots for California students.

Much of California economic entrepreneurial power has come from it’s extraordinary collection of top Universities. Many of those Universities were created and nurtured with California Taxpayers dollars. Now, rather than educate the children of those taxpayers, the University administration is going to focus on recruiting wealthy International students who will bring in more money. While this may be good short term strategy, I wonder what the long term consequences will be, when those students return to their home counties with a high quality California education, while our native students, who were unable to attend the very best schools now have to compete with those International students that attended California’s finest.

Exit question: Are we creating long term economic consequences for ourselves by sell our best educational products to wealthy International students, while denying our native borne students the best education? Your thoughts are most welcome.